Steve,Ultimately, one can only go along with what makes sense and what seems credible. I don't claim any special insights into the American health-care situation. I can only draw conclusions from reports mentioned on the internet and other sources.

Wikipedia is certainly not an infallible source of information, but at least it allows corrections and amendments to its articles from people who think they have a more reliable or more in-depth understanding of the subject.

I'll quote the following fairly long extract from Wikipedia because I find it quite revealing of the difficulties in getting accurate information. If you disagree with the position represented in the article, why not amend it or add to it with more reliable information?

Essentially, what I understand from this Wikipedia article is that the number of uninsured Americans who die each year as a result of a lack of insurance is roughly equal to the minimum estimate of the number of insured Americans who die as a result of medical errors. But no-one has of course a reliable and accurate estimate of the true number of deaths each year due to medical error. Some estimates are in the hundreds of thousands. How could anyone possibly determine what the actual figure is. If every medical practitioner were to admit or confess when he/she had made a mistake or had been negligent, then we wouldn't need such an expensive legal system to try to get to the truth.

At least you have impeccable taste.

1. This is all anyone can do. Especially when the numbers are influenced by so many factors and variables that we might/might not agree should be used. Most often their conclusion that someone died from lack of health insurance isn't at all that they were turned away.. but often because they died from something that 'should' have been caught during a normal checkup (not from acute symptoms), but by the time they found it.. they died from it because it was beyond treatable. Now.. did this guy die because he had no health insurance, or because he didn't spend for a checkup? Consider that in most cases checkups aren't covered, often either are they covered for the insured,.. but the treatment would have been picked up by medicare or some charity group had they known he needed to be treated. It's a catch-22.. kinda boils down to "if he did have insurance would his insurance have covered the checkup" and "would he have gone for the checkup (the number who don't is staggering)" and "Considering insurance doesn't routinely cover checkups shouldn't he have paid for this himself like everyone else does?"

Now.. we know they're talking about a great many things other than this.. so how can we refute? I certainly have no interest in refuting what I consider a meaningless bit of writing. However, if you want to read it and draw conclusions supporting your worst fears than you will.. but no matter what you or I do, it doesn't make this report any more or less true. In other words it's chaff.. thrown out there knowing no one will specifically refute it.. to serve a purpose for one side of the debate.

2. Exactly. And the more educated you become on the tactics of both sides of the issue.. the more accurate your conclusions will be. But this will take a while before you begin to sort them out.

3. This conclusion though kinda goes along with what I've been saying..the number is small enough to be in there with the mistakes and errors and not necessarily because evil is being done.

There's a menu item at the top of that page About HCP which leads to information about data sources, methodology and --

There was no need to get defensive by asking your questions. I was not attacking your person or your opinion. I merely wanted to know the answer. The burden to provide proof should be equal on both parties when statements are made. I simply chose to ask you the question because I believed you would have the answer. Thanks for sharing that answer and information with me. I do not know how a person could come to the conclusion that the study was biased based on the source of the funding. This does not mean that those conducting the study were completely honest in their findings. Maybe they were, maybe not. If the general consensus of multiple independent studies supports the same conclusion then chances are it was an unbiased finding.

I think that sometimes studies are biased from the time the idea is formed. If a person wants to provide information supporting any given theory or opinion, information can be found from somewhere or from someone.

You've exceeded yourself Isaac. Congratulations on finding a regular list of sponsors. I found them the first time I looked on the site. These companies are not listed as funding the study in question.

I'll ask you. If you knew about this several posts ago and thought it showed who paid for this specific study why didn't you point it out then? And show that it did?

About the list. No where does it say this list is inclusive, nor do they say it's not but I think it's safe to assume they wouldn't turn away funding. But if we go just by the 26 which is a waste of time until they say directly where the study was funded.. surely you've at least.. on the surface.. checked them out? Until you do I'm not sure what you think you've accomplished. It's all pretty half baked don't you think?

There was no need to get defensive by asking your questions. I was not attacking your person or your opinion. I merely wanted to know the answer. The burden to provide proof should be equal on both parties when statements are made. I simply chose to ask you the question because I believed you would have the answer. Thanks for sharing that answer and information with me. I do not know how a person could come to the conclusion that the study was biased based on the source of the funding. This does not mean that those conducting the study were completely honest in their findings. Maybe they were, maybe not. If the general consensus of multiple independent studies supports the same conclusion then chances are it was an unbiased finding.

I think that sometimes studies are biased from the time the idea is formed. If a person wants to provide information supporting any given theory or opinion, information can be found from somewhere or from someone.

1. I don't agree. The source of funding is used to support charges in courtrooms, politics, and reasonable mindfs everywhere.

But what this is all about was one comment (among many) I made saying if a research/study group is not disclosing the source of their funding, then it leaves the door open to think all kinds of things, if proving nothing. But even if the authors of this funding told us they were funded by "Make Canada's Healthcare Look Great Lcc" all we could say is the same thing.. I think they're biased, I think they're not. It's an opinion, not a charge. But if they are funded by a questionable source I think someone we know.. names starts with I.. might be more obliged to agree..

Now.. did this guy die because he had no health insurance, or because he didn't spend for a checkup?

C'mon now, Steve. Be honest with yourself. If a guy doesn't have private health insurance in a country such as America where there is no universal public health insurance for everyone, it's presumably because he considers that he can't afford it, or if he can afford it, he chooses to spend the money on other things.

As a result of being reluctant, or unable to spend money on health insurance, is it not likely he will be equally reluctant or unable to spend money on check-ups or visits to the doctor for the slightest ailment? Is it also not likely that his pride might cause him to be reluctant to visit medical charity organisations? Is it also not likely that such medical charity organisations will not be well-equipped and adequately funded for the services they attempt to provide?

In Australia, our national health system is called Medicare and the cost of the system is supported by an additional tax on everyone's taxable income, except those who are too poor to be eligible to pay income tax. Even those who have their own private health insurance have to pay the additional tax, which is 1.5% of their taxable income. Those who are on a high income but who have opted to rely upon the public health system, are obliged to pay an additional Medicare levy up to a further 1.5%, as I understand the system.

The result of such a system is that no-one need feel discouraged from visiting a doctor in case he is landed with unaffordable medical bills. Generally, men tend to be more reluctant than women to visit a doctor when they have a problem that they think is not serious, and I'm a bit like that. I was once persuaded by a female friend to visit a doctor to get a prescription for antimalarial drugs before visiting Cambodia. She thought the country might be rife with malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

Just to humour her, I went along with the suggestion, but felt a bit silly. As it turned out, there were no outbreaks of malaria in any of the regions of Cambodia I visited, which included a flight to Phnom Penh from Bangkok; a river cruise along the Mekong from Phnom Penh to Siem Reap; a couple of weeks photographing the ruins around Angkor Wat, and an adventurous trip by road from Siem Reap to the Thai border through some very heavy flooding.

I stopped taking the tablets soon after arrival in Cambodia. However, what I found interesting was the thoroughness of the female doctor in Australia who had prescribed me the antimalarial drugs. Before prescribing the drugs she recommended I have a blood test, presumably to check if I had any condition which might interfere with the antimalarial drugs, and/or any unrelated condition which might need attention. The total cost to me for two consultations with the doctor, a blood test and the antimalarial pills, was insignificant. As I recall, just $10 or $20 for the subsidised antimalarial pills. What a great system!

Congratulations on finding a regular list of sponsors. I found them the first time I looked on the site. These companies are not listed as funding the study in question.

The "study in question" is "How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada" -- "Health" is one of the six aspects that are examined.

The companies are listed under the heading "Investors in How Canada Performs" in the description "About How Canada Performs", following the explanation -- "Twenty-six companies invested in the project this year, providing invaluable financial, leadership, and knowledge support."

Please tell us why those twenty-six companies - listed as providing "financial, leadership and knowledge support" for the "How Canada Performs" study - are not, what you would describe as "listed as funding the [How Canada Performs] study..."

C'mon now, Steve. Be honest with yourself. If a guy doesn't have private health insurance in a country such as America where there is no universal public health insurance for everyone, it's presumably because he considers that he can't afford it, or if he can afford it, he chooses to spend the money on other things.

As a result of being reluctant, or unable to spend money on health insurance, is it not likely he will be equally reluctant or unable to spend money on check-ups or visits to the doctor for the slightest ailment? Is it also not likely that his pride might cause him to be reluctant to visit medical charity organisations? Is it also not likely that such medical charity organisations will not be well-equipped and adequately funded for the services they attempt to provide?

In Australia, our national health system is called Medicare and the cost of the system is supported by an additional tax on everyone's taxable income, except those who are too poor to be eligible to pay income tax. Even those who have their own private health insurance have to pay the additional tax, which is 1.5% of their taxable income. Those who are on a high income but who have opted to rely upon the public health system, are obliged to pay an additional Medicare levy up to a further 1.5%, as I understand the system.

The result of such a system is that no-one need feel discouraged from visiting a doctor in case he is landed with unaffordable medical bills. Generally, men tend to be more reluctant than women to visit a doctor when they have a problem that they think is not serious, and I'm a bit like that. I was once persuaded by a female friend to visit a doctor to get a prescription for antimalarial drugs before visiting Cambodia. She thought the country might be rife with malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

Just to humour her, I went along with the suggestion, but felt a bit silly. As it turned out, there were no outbreaks of malaria in any of the regions of Cambodia I visited, which included a flight to Phnom Penh from Bangkok; a river cruise along the Mekong from Phnom Penh to Siem Reap; a couple of weeks photographing the ruins around Angkor Wat, and an adventurous trip by road from Siem Reap to the Thai border through some very heavy flooding.

I stopped taking the tablets soon after arrival in Cambodia. However, what I found interesting was the thoroughness of the female doctor in Australia who had prescribed me the antimalarial drugs. Before prescribing the drugs she recommended I have a blood test, presumably to check if I had any condition which might interfere with the antimalarial drugs, and/or any unrelated condition which might need attention. The total cost to me for two consultations with the doctor, a blood test and the antimalarial pills, was insignificant. As I recall, just $10 or $20 for the subsidised antimalarial pills. What a great system!

Ray -

1. I am always honest with myself. And with you.

2. I was saying they weren't going, you're giving us reasons why. Okay, I can see where all of your scenarios would be valid and I can think of 10x more. But life is about making choices and I'd recommend everyone put their health care right there near the top. Wouldn't you?

3. This is where I disagree. Just because healthcare is free doesn't necessarily mean that block of people finding excuses not to seek preventative care would all of sudden decide they would.. If you read more on the subject you'll see that preventative car (lack of people seeking it) is an issue even in one-payer systems. Equally so to my surprise. But the information is out there if yo care to seek it.

A good example would be dentists.. what is it about dentists where we wait until we can't avoid going in.. to go in? I'll bet most of us can relate to that one. Unless you know something is wrong and must be treated, or your symptoms are so painful you can't avoid it, there are a great many people who will avoid seeking treatment regardless of payment.

4. Is there a cap on that 1.5%? For instance, we already pay more than double that just for our social security, but it max's out, or you don't pay more, after $110,000 is reached.

How would you feel about this if your country was charging you 4.6% for social security, laying another 6.2% on to your employer for the same thing, and then charging you 1.45% for medicare (medical for people over 62 of 65), and then they kept telling you both of these systems (social security and medicare) were broke, running dry, and by the time you retired they system would be broke and everything you put in it would be used up? This is what we're told. And on top of that they want up 35% more for income tax, up to 20% more for state income tax, and we haven't even got to sales tax rates where 10% states aren't unusual, tax on gas of up to 69.6 cents per gallon (NY), tire tax, phone tax, and frankly the list of taxes we're subject to might fill a book.

SO.. you're paying all these taxes and being told Social Security will probably be broke before you can draw on it, you hear constant bickering among politicians on how underfunded Medicare is and how it's not enough and our seniors aren't getting adequate car.. and they're raping your pay check before you get it.. and with sales/consumer taxes after you get it. Now.. someone knocks on your door and says "Mr. Ray, we want to take more of your pay check and buy everyone healthcare insurance including those who are in the country illegally. How much do you have left Ray? And how much more are you willing to give?

I'd like to do away with all of it except the essentials. And while I'm trying to figure out what's essential to me, I'm being told it's essential to pay for the healthcare and college tuition of those who are here illegally.

Meanwhile.. not one credible agency is saying a one-payer health-care system will result in less cost. In fact, it's already been estimated Obamacare will cost more than double what he promised it would.

The "study in question" is "How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada" -- "Health" is one of the six aspects that are examined.

The companies are listed under the heading "Investors in How Canada Performs" in the description "About How Canada Performs", following the explanation -- "Twenty-six companies invested in the project this year, providing invaluable financial, leadership, and knowledge support."

Please tell us why those twenty-six companies - listed as providing "financial, leadership and knowledge support" for the "How Canada Performs" study - are not, what you would describe as "listed as funding the [How Canada Performs] study..."

It took an hour for the Director of "How Canada Performs" to confirm "There were no other sources of funding." apart from those listed.

Thank you for helping me really grasp, how truly destructive cynicism is to reason.

I think it's quite clear that you have not shown any reason for thinking there actually is bias in the information presented by "How Canada Performs".

1. Would it help if we changed the name of "How Canada Performs" to "Research Group Inc?" You do realise this is the name of their program and not their company? This is a program specifically namedd, built and funded to show Canada in the best possible light. Can you see it now? Do you REALLY stand that there is no bias? It's not a research company Isaac.. it's an entire program aimed at making Canada look their best. So of course that's what they'll do.

2. So you called the Directory and an hour later he got back to you and claimed there were no other sources of funding than those 26? Impressive response I'll admit.

3. I've shown multiple reasons. Over and over again. What you're trying to say is if we haven't caught the red-handed then we had no reason to investigate in the first place. It's a good thing real research groups don't operate under the same rules or their studies would be worthless. So would police departments.

4. And I'm sure you've done your due diligence and checked out the political and other leanings of the group of investors they did reveal? If so, please tell us about the first one. Grainger Inc. They're based out of Chicago and very well known to Americans. We know which political parties they support, how much they donate to candidates, and we also know they're heavily involved with the business of health care. Just a bit more than they're up to their ears with the Chinese. But I'll bet.. that if some reporter digs up credible links showing Grainger to be corrupt or unduly influencing whatever.. that director will be the first to say "well, all of our investors aren't necessarily funding every study..

Isaac.. I understand there's a ostrich mentality out there.. they just want to believe in what they want.. and they never want to look for problems or issues. I'm just not part of it. We find out every day just how illegally involved certain companies and individuals are where they shouldn't be. We all read the papers. You just choose to wait for the final verdict.. and that's okay.

But I do have plenty of reasons to suspect a program (not a company, but an actual program aimed with it's entire purpose being to show Canana performs well) called "How Canada Performs" is probably heavily invested to show it performs well. And that they'll cherry pick information, ignore other information, manipulate statistics, or do whatever they can to justify their very existence and with it their funding.

But life is about making choices and I'd recommend everyone put their health care right there near the top. Wouldn't you?

Absolutely! But I think I might have news for you, Steve. Putting health care at the top begins with a healthy lifestyle, and that means eating wholesome and unprocessed foods which have a lot of fibre content; eating fresh fruit and vegetables on a regular basis, and exercising on a regular basis, including aerobic exrecise such as brisk walking or jogging, and anaerobic exrecise such as lifting weights in the gym.

Putting health care at the top also means avoiding harmful substances such as tobacco and other recreational drugs, and refraining from excessive alcohol intake.

It also means avoiding many of the foods recommended by the weight-loss industry, such as low-fat milk and margarines containing polyunsaturated vegetable fats. These are highly processed foods which are not natural. Saturated fats, as in full cream milk, butter, cheese, bacon and eggs, etc should be no problem provided one eats them in moderation. Moderation is the key word. Energy input should not exceed energy output.

If everyone were to follow my advice, I predict there would eventually be massive redundancies and unemployment amongst doctors and nurses. No work for them. We wouldn't want that, would we?

Quote

SO.. you're paying all these taxes and being told Social Security will probably be broke before you can draw on it, you hear constant bickering among politicians on how underfunded Medicare is and how it's not enough and our seniors aren't getting adequate car.. and they're raping your pay check before you get it.. and with sales/consumer taxes after you get it. Now.. someone knocks on your door and says "Mr. Ray, we want to take more of your pay check and buy everyone healthcare insurance including those who are in the country illegally. How much do you have left Ray? And how much more are you willing to give?

Look, Steve! All governments can only operate with the taxes they are able to collect. Small taxes tend to equate with small governments, and large taxes tend to equate with large governments. There's always an ongoing discussion about which services should be funded by taxes through the Government, and which should be privately controlled.

I think everyone would agree that a nation's Armed Forces should be controlled and funded by the government, from everyone's taxes, because the armed forces are basic services which are fundamental to the security of the nation, and the life and death of its citizens.

Likewise, it is my view that medical services in relation to any life-threatening situation that might apply to any one of a nation's citizens, whether rich or poor, should be freely available, and paid for by general taxes.

When it comes to frills and niceties, that's a different matter. No-one has ever died of a tooth ache, as far as I know, and for that reason dental care is not free in Australia.

Also, basic dental treatment such as tooth extractions and fillings are not particularly expensive. If you think they are, then take a trip to Thailand. I had a tooth extracted in Bangkok a few months ago. It cost approximately $30. My only concern was that the rather attractive, but rather slight and demure female dentist, didn't look strong enough to tug out my massive tooth. But she managed okay.

Would it help if we changed the name of "How Canada Performs" to "Research Group Inc?" You do realise this is the name of their program and not their company? This is a program specifically namedd, built and funded to show Canada in the best possible light. Can you see it now? Do you REALLY stand that there is no bias? It's not a research company Isaac.. it's an entire program aimed at making Canada look their best. So of course that's what they'll do.

You've told us -- "Congratulations on finding a regular list of sponsors. I found them the first time I looked on the site. These companies are not listed as funding the study in question."

It would help if you told us why those twenty-six companies - listed as providing "financial, leadership and knowledge support" for the "How Canada Performs" study - are not, what you would describe as "listed as funding the [How Canada Performs] study..."

Absolutely! But I think I might have news for you, Steve. Putting health care at the top begins with a healthy lifestyle, and that means eating wholesome and unprocessed foods which have a lot of fibre content; eating fresh fruit and vegetables on a regular basis, and exercising on a regular basis, including aerobic exrecise such as brisk walking or jogging, and anaerobic exrecise such as lifting weights in the gym.

Putting health care at the top also means avoiding harmful substances such as tobacco and other recreational drugs, and refraining from excessive alcohol intake.

It also means avoiding many of the foods recommended by the weight-loss industry, such as low-fat milk and margarines containing polyunsaturated vegetable fats. These are highly processed foods which are not natural. Saturated fats, as in full cream milk, butter, cheese, bacon and eggs, etc should be no problem provided one eats them in moderation. Moderation is the key word. Energy input should not exceed energy output.

If everyone were to follow my advice, I predict there would eventually be massive redundancies and unemployment amongst doctors and nurses. No work for them. We wouldn't want that, would we?

Look, Steve! All governments can only operate with the taxes they are able to collect. Small taxes tend to equate with small governments, and large taxes tend to equate with large governments. There's always an ongoing discussion about which services should be funded by taxes through the Government, and which should be privately controlled.

I think everyone would agree that a nation's Armed Forces[/b] should be controlled and funded by the government, from everyone's taxes, because the armed forces are basic services which are fundamental to the security of the nation, and the life and death of its citizens.

Likewise, it is my view that medical services in relation to any life-threatening situation that might apply to any one of a nation's citizens, whether rich or poor, should be freely available, and paid for by general taxes.

When it comes to frills and niceties, that's a different matter. No-one has ever died of a tooth ache, as far as I know, and for that reason dental care is not free in Australia.

Also, basic dental treatment such as tooth extractions and fillings are not particularly expensive. If you think they are, then take a trip to Thailand. I had a tooth extracted in Bangkok a few months ago. It cost approximately $30. My only concern was that the rather attractive, but rather slight and demure female dentist, didn't look strong enough to tug out my massive tooth. But she managed okay.

1. I'd be surprised? No.. I've advocated healthy living since I can remember. I've never smoked or done drugs and I have never drank much with my last drink over 12-13 years ago.. I'm pretty much into live whole foods. And I definitely agree lifestyle greatly affects overall health.

I don't think anyone wants to pay for the healthcare costs that come from a persons bad habits such as smoking or obesity or drinking.. In fact, when I said earlier in this thread that I'd definitely go support a one-payer for children and maybe even full time college students I had this in mind, young enough to not be able to be responsible for their own care.. and not yet old enough where their bad habits would cost the general populace.

2. Yes, there will always be discussion on how best to use resources. Unfortunately when a countries taxes are taking 50-75% or more of a persons pay check it just might be we've over stepped and gone to far. That we lost our sense of responsibility.

3. Why? Should the government also pay for life-threatening conditions to our homes, cars, and other aspects of life? Or should we really just strive to be responsible for ourselves and keep our hands out of our neighbours pockets as much as possible? Where I come from putting your hands in your neighbours pockets quickly becomes a life threatening condition..

And btw.. Anyone in our country and yours can walk into a hospital at any time, including non-citizens, and be treated for life threatening conditions. We've covered this many times in this thread. So if that's the case, you are happy?

4. With you being the exercise and diet guru and all.. not sure how to break this to you. People die from toothaches and other dental related issues all the time. Many doctors would tell you.. you can't separate the health of the body from dental health. Infection carried to the hearth, going septic, blood conditions.. all dental related. In all seriousness, I cannot see from a medical standpoint how any one-payer system can claim to be treating their patients thoroughly WITHOUT also covering dental. But Australia and the UK don't.. not sure about Canada.

5. Really? I'll have to make it over there one of these days.. enlightening!

You've told us -- "Congratulations on finding a regular list of sponsors. I found them the first time I looked on the site. These companies are not listed as funding the study in question."

It would help if you told us why those twenty-six companies - listed as providing "financial, leadership and knowledge support" for the "How Canada Performs" study - are not, what you would describe as "listed as funding the [How Canada Performs] study..."

I think you're having some trouble understanding how this company is set up. It's not per say a "research company." It's merely a defined program aimed towards "How Canada Performs" on a variety of subjects.. healthcare included. They list the 26 companies as providing support on the whole.. not for individual studies.

I've always assumed you were familiar with reading studies but maybe not. If you were, it would be expected for you to have the same issues with funding I have because funding, biases, etc, have become real issues. They way any credible study deals with it is usually right up front in the preface or somewhere easy to see.. you don't need to go look for it. They'll say "this study was funded by.." And they list who funded the study. Now.. if the person funding the study could be anticipated as being controversial.. then they'll address that right up front by saying something like "though companyx is a known supporter of Y, we are still accepting their funding but not their input or direction or some word to that effect.

What's been amusing in this conversation with you.. is that a program that defines itself by showing how Canada performs against other countries could be anything less than biased.. it's the purpose of their very existence.. to examine certain areas and show how Canada performs.

Now.. if you think "but if they weren't performing well they'd just tell us that.." I'd say "show me an example." If they regularly do this and you can show us examples of them doing so, and not just the token example.. then I'll admit I was wrong about them.

But come on Isaac.. it's a company who states right up front what their purpose is.. to make Canada look good in these areas. So of course that's what they're going to do.

Anyway, whether or not I'm right or wrong on such a small area of the total discussion pales in comparison to the total itself. I'd gladly concede to being wrong if it would just move us forward. Whoever is right or wrong about this just doesn't matter when it's distracting from the bigger picture.

It's merely a defined program aimed towards "How Canada Performs" on a variety of subjects.. healthcare included. They list the 26 companies as providing support on the whole.. not for individual studies.

Congratulations on finding a regular list of sponsors. I found them the first time I looked on the site. These companies are not listed as funding the study in question.

-- and now your only explanation seems to be that the twenty-six companies were listed as providing "financial, leadership and knowledge support" for all 6 subjects, "Health" included, covered by the "study in question" not just for the subject "Health" by-itself.

With your explanation, your claim "We have no knowledge of funding because they have selected to provide none." is shown to be untrue.

Plainly, we do have knowledge of funding for all 6 subjects, "Health" included, covered by the "study in question" "How Canada Performs".

Now.. if you think "but if they weren't performing well they'd just tell us that.." I'd say "show me an example." If they regularly do this and you can show us examples of them doing so, and not just the token example.. then I'll admit I was wrong about them.

'When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".'

The burden rests with you to show that you have found examples of actual bias in "How Canada Performs".

This is an expression of cynicism -- an emphatic negative judgement made before investigation, a kind of prejudice.

'When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".'

The burden rests with you to show that you have found examples of actual bias in "How Canada Performs".

All you've done so far is express a cynical prejudice.

As you prefer cynical prejudice to logical thinking on such a small area, where we can easily check your statements, there's no reasoned discussion to be had.

Isaac.. can we at least try to be reasonable?

1. This is an expression of realism. If you choose not to live in this world that's okay.. I understand there's a certain number of people who will deny the obvious.

2. Okay.. so you found a rule book. Unfortunately my copy must have got lost in the mail. Perhaps we could call it a "discussion" as in "discussion forum" where people can give well reasoned statements without the affidavits?

3. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

4. Sure there is.. we could discuss the other 99% you've been conveniently ignoring.

Obviously somewhere along the line you've got in a snit and I'm okay with that. Let's have some fun instead:

If you're really unable to see how a program specifically started to show Canada in a good light might be biased let me create my own "Program" called "How is America Doing.."

How Is America Doing

We have secured funding of like minded companies who have a vested interest for or against certain areas of government as we do. We are not a research group so we don't have to adhere to normal practices and ethics for research groups. We'll call it a "program" because that can be whatever we want it to be.

We won't do a lick of our our research. Instead we will mine published statistics and find the ones that show things in our favor.. and ignore those who don't. Most people who agree won't look further because they're hearing what they want to hear, and most who disagree won't look further because they're lazy and don't care anyway.

We will create reports showing pre-determined views and plaster then all over the internet in an attractive package and carefully worded so those who think as we do will not question us. In fact, they'll use this to support us in other areas. We all know, if you hear it enough times then a certain percentage of people will think it's true. Heaven help the poor fools who try and reason with these people for they are damned for all of eternity. All others will be classified as cynics.

Isn't America great? For $29.95 you can obtain written permission to use our program to show your country in any damn way you want. Win any debate, show any program to be healthy and thriving, show any candidate to be winning, if you've got a horse in a race anywhere.. then let's show that horse in the best possible way. For $29.95 you can do this and more.

But wait. For a limited amount of time you can buy one program for $29.95 and get another program for free. Heck, see this nice list of counterpoints? We'll through in a set of those too. All that AND free shipping! How can you not afford to send in your $29.95 now. ..

Whew.. no one can find anything wrong with that without being labeled a cynic..

I don't think anyone wants to pay for the healthcare costs that come from a persons bad habits such as smoking or obesity or drinking..

I think we can agree on that point, yet it is my belief that most of the costs of health care are for that very purpose, wherever the money may come from. We live to be merry, and that includes eating and drinking for pleasure with narry a thought for the consequences.

Quote

Should the government also pay for life-threatening conditions to our homes, cars, and other aspects of life?

You're referring to inanimate objects here, aren't you? In so far as these inanimate objects are life-threatening, then of course the Government has a role to play. Roads should be designed and constructed so they are safe to drive on. Houses should be built in accordance with certain standards to withstand the onslaught of hurricanes and floods, if they are situated in areas frequently subjected to hurricanes and floods, and when infrequent disasters of record-breaking severity occur, as recently with Sandy, then the government has to step in, as your great President Obama has vowed to do, without interference and delays from red tape.

Quote

Many doctors would tell you.. you can't separate the health of the body from dental health. Infection carried to the hearth, going septic, blood conditions.. all dental related. In all seriousness, I cannot see from a medical standpoint how any one-payer system can claim to be treating their patients thoroughly WITHOUT also covering dental. But Australia and the UK don't.. not sure about Canada.

Just for the record, I might have misrepresented the situation regarding dental care for the uninsured in Australia. I suspect dental care in Australia for the uninsured is probably similar in quality to the general medical care in America for the uninsured. You state,

Quote

Anyone in our country and yours can walk into a hospital at any time, including non-citizens, and be treated for life threatening conditions.

In Australia, that also applies to any dental situation which any individual thinks is an urgent problem, such as a tooth ache or a filling which has dropped out. Our hospitals have emergency dental clinics. To get attention one has to turn up at the dental clinic at 7am, or earlier if you want to be first in the queue. The clinic will probably open at 8am or 8,30am, and you might be lucky to see a dentist by 10am. The problem tooth will be extracted or refilled, but any other matters that need attention will require one to be put on a long waiting list for an appointment. By long, I mean 6 months or more.

This situation is far different from a visit to the doctor for whatever reason. Those who do not have private insurance in Australia do not have to self-diagnose themselves as having a life-threatening condition before getting a speedy appointement with a doctor. Nor do they have to queue up for long hours in the early morning, at least not where I live.

All that is required is a simple phone call to make an appointment, which can usually be the same day. Sometimes there may be a slight wait beyond the time of the appointment; sometimes not. The problem can be quite trivial, such as ears getting a bit blocked up with wax, a cough that won't go away, or a pain in the arse. One usually has to pay a small amount for any medication that is prescribed.

Hope I've managed to enlighten you, Steve, on the qualities of a good health system.